Tweet
REGIONAL GOVERNOR IN EASTERN UKRAINE CRITICIZES RULING PARTY
Ukrayina Moloda, Ukraine
Nov 9 2006
Kharkiv Region governor Arsen Avakov has said that the Party of
Regions did not keep its promises made during the parliamentary
election, in particular, regarding language, NATO and people's
well-being. The following is the text of Avakov's article headlined
"November propositions" published by propresidential newspaper Ukrayina
Moloda on 9 November. Original subheadings have been retained:
Conclusions on the Rubicon: why did the "blues" win, what mistakes
did the "oranges" make, and is it all right to betray principles.
Weary of the hustle and bustle, the yellow leaves of autumn are
falling. Parting with their leaves, the branches of trees decked with
the blue ribbons of the election winners are growing bare everywhere.
The ribbons are being bared and so are the intentions... [ellipsis
as published]
Leaves, painted the brilliant colours of emotions, are falling to
the pavement, and so, too, are promises, laying bare the blatantly
crude nature of the true positions and promises of politicians.
Nobody is disturbed by the lies, which are becoming obvious.
Deceived yet again after the 2006 elections, society is not even
attempting to analyse the reasons for having been deluded or, more
precisely, self-deluded.
But let us nevertheless examine the key promises of the Party of
Regions, which enabled it to gain a victory in the elections.
Promise number one. Language.
It is easy for me to talk about both the problems of the Russian
language and the problem of the Ukrainian language, because I myself
am practically entirely the product of Russian-language culture. Yet
despite that I consciously consider myself a supporter of the position
that Ukrainian is the only state language in our country; Russian is
the main language of intercourse in the eastern and southern regions
of Ukraine, and nothing more.
I see no problems in communication between Russian speakers and
Ukrainian speakers. These problems arise once every four years,
only before elections. The problems are artificial, premeditated,
make-believe in form, and provocative in content. Because no serious
politician can fail to understand that the State of Ukraine has the
right and is obliged to support the Ukrainian language, if for no
other reason than because Armenia supports the Armenian language,
Russia -the Russian language, Germany -the German language.
Ukrainians, the citizens of this state, and the Ukrainian state must
support the Ukrainian language, because language, among other things,
is the basis of the nation's culture, its self-identification.
It so happened that for many years the peoples within the borders of
the Soviet Union, in a single polyethnic space, worked together to
create a unique, beautiful culture, the quintessence and expression of
which was the Russian language. It was in the Russian language that
countless cultural masterpieces and artistic monuments were created,
incorporating the entire polyethnic esthetic of cultures from Georgia
to Ukraine, from Moldova to Kazakhstan, from Russia to Armenia. I
love this culture. I grew up in it, and I value highly its beautiful
monuments created in the Russian language, the "great and mighty." And
it is absolutely obvious to me that the Russian language will always
continue to be used and respected in Ukraine. For the educated,
cultured individual, it will always be a vital fount of knowledge,
along with other languages.
But the Ukrainian language -beautiful, melodious, born on this land
- is as natural here as the air that the sons and daughters of this
land breathe, loved by many, many millions of Ukrainians, both ethnic
and those whom fate has bound to this land. It always has been,
is, and must remain the foundation of a unique Ukrainian culture,
of the nation's spiritual essence, which is the basis on which true
statehood is built.
How long will this inherently unnatural conflict between Russian and
Ukrainian last in Ukraine? Unfortunately, just as long as we, the
generation of people who were born and lived in the Soviet Union,
remain alive - the generation that was the author of this unique
polyethnic Russian-language culture.
And, therefore, it will be our lot to hear many more elections promises
like the one offered by the Party of Regions as the leading proposition
in the 2006 election. This promise to restore Russian as the state
language was largely responsible for the victory of the "Regionals."
This promise is a mirror that reflects the secret hope of a large
number of voters... [ellipsis as published]
Let us imagine, for example, a very learned professor, a wise man, an
intellectual, who lectures at, let's say, Kharkiv State University. A
true specialist, whom overzealous ministry officials suddenly force
to deliver his brilliant lectures in Ukrainian. And this turns into
torture for the professor!
No doubt that, somehow or other, every lecturer can master a
language, but for some this poses a very serious problem, especially
in the case of an older individual who grew up and was raised in a
Russian-speaking environment, understands it, and feels comfortable
in it... [ellipsis as published] Yet government officials demand that
this individual teach his subject in Ukrainian. And his wonderful
lecturers lose all their brilliance, even though they are delivered
in the state language. In this case, the lecturer, in his heart of
hearts will always set aside any other moral imperatives and based on
his innermost desire will vote for the one who proclaims be it even
a populist but still so appealing to him slogan: "Russian should be
the second state language!" And he will not care whether or not this
proposition leads to a split in the country, to social conflict,
because this promise reflects his wish... [ellipsis as published]
Therein lies the reason for so many votes in support of an empty
phrase, devoid of common sense and elementary culture.
The other side of the coin. What has caused such a metamorphosis in the
consciousness of people for whom Russian is their native language,
the language in which they think and create? Surely the radical
actions of political marginals, the extremely strident statements
by national-patriots, who demand everything and immediately, only
this and literally right now. It is they who have provoked such a
feeling of revulsion against the Ukrainian language among a part of
our intelligentsia.
A government official must deal with tact, sensitivity, and respect
with an issue as delicate as the relationship between languages during
this transitional period in the life of our society.
Promise number two. The anti-NATO promise.
This promise contains equal parts of deception and false propaganda.
The deception lies in the fact that the "Regionals" know perfectly
well that NATO is a broad, modern, international platform and not
the worn-out cliche of an "aggressive military bloc." The falseness
of the propaganda -in the methods used to stir up opinion similarly
to the attacks of the "cold war" period. All the "Regionals" lacked
to complete the picture were the caricatures by the Kukryniks tandem.
It is clear that behind this promise lies a ruthless pro-Russian
order. It is clear that the manipulation of people's expectations
(everyone expects a peaceful sky) is best done with the help of
fearmongering. Unfortunately, the pressure of Soviet propaganda
has left such a strong imprint on the minds of ordinary people that
anti-NATO sentiments have been very easily resurrected. The current
attempt to shape attitudes towards NATO through a referendum is
cynical. Cynical, because it is very easy to achieve the expected
result: whip up hysteria with the help of leftist marginals and then
drive people to a banal conclusion: I don't know what NATO is, but
I'll vote against just in case.
Very important in this respect is the awareness of one universal
fact. NATO is not the one calling on Ukraine to join its community
-it is Ukraine that should be seeking to become a member of this
organization. Just as Ukraine has made joining the European Union
its goal. It is Ukraine, first and foremost, that needs membership in
NATO. The reasoning that, see, Russia is allegedly not seeking to join
the West and we should follow her example is mistaken and dangerous.
At one time France showed the whole world the art of compromise in
foreign policy. Before de Gaulle came to power in 1958, France was
a full-fledged member of NATO - not only American bases but also
the governing bodies of NATO were located on French territory: the
alliance's Council, Secretariat, and Supreme Headquarters. Moreover,
a contingent of French troops was assigned to the composition of NATO
forces under American command.
In de Gaulle's view, all this infringed on French interests. The
dependence of Western Europe in security matters was turning into
political dependence. Fearing that France would be drawn into conflicts
that had no bearing on her interests, France left the North Atlantic
bloc in 1966 and assumed a special status. The NATO bloc adapted
to this state of affairs. Paris did not participate directly in the
work of NATO's military bodies, but maintained missions in them to
coordinate actions. France participated in the work of certain bodies
of NATO's military-technical infrastructure.
The most important dilemma - combining solidarity with NATO with
an autonomous status in the bloc - was resolved professionally and
diplomatically. De Gaulle's actions set a trend, especially apparent
in our own time (the independence of the members of the North Atlantic
bloc from the US is growing).
Perhaps Ukrainian politicians should also seek a similar approach
in order to reach a compromise in foreign policy and especially in
domestic politics.
Russia's tough and irreconcilable policy towards NATO is not a model in
this case. Russia is a completely different country. A rich, ambitious
country, with a strong authoritarian orientation, an imperial ideology,
and actions that are not always well-timed.
"Ukraine is not Russia," as former President [Leonid] Kuchma said. In
that (and not only in that) I agree with him. We have chosen a
European course of development, we are fighting for democracy, we do
not have the natural resources they have, and we are energy-dependent
on Russia. Where we are alike is in that we are also ambitious -
Ukraine is trying to prove to herself, to Russia, and to the world at
large that she is not a borderland but an independent European state.
For that reason, the Regionals' reversal towards the older brother
is essentially a betrayal of Ukraine, the betrayal of her national
interests. I use such strong language, because I am neither a
Russophobe nor a Russophile. I am a patriot of Ukraine; I find it
extremely offensive that I and my country are being deceived. Doubly
offensive when this is being done by my fellow countrymen.
The "anti-crisis" coalition has decided to undertake a serious revision
of the country's foreign policy course. And we need to understand
clearly that statements by the new government that shock the world
community are ringing out one after another not for the sake of
carrying out its election promises. The goal is much more serious:
to halt Ukraine's progress along the path of democracy, consciously
enter Russia's sphere of influence, and obtain huge political and
financial dividends in exchange.
Promise number three. "A real improvement of life by tomorrow..."
No matter how many times our long-suffering people have got burned
by various political ruses, advertising tricks, and other swindles,
their belief in an unrealizable but "rosy dream" proves to be much
stronger than ordinary common sense.
And politicos take advantage of this belief as they sweepingly paint
a cloudlessly-blue-skied tomorrow. And so the people believe that
promises that Russian gas will not increase but drop in price...
[ellipsis as published] And the residents of multimillion cities
believe that the costs of housing will never rise... [ellipsis as
published] And the voters are being calculatingly deceived with
the fairy tale of the "Five-year development plan"...[ellipsis as
published]
Come to your senses, my fellow countrymen! Why do you allow the rivers
of milk and honey of promises from the country's political swindlers
to flow?!
The victors will always find a way to explain why they did not keep
their promises -never doubt this, even for a moment. Looking at
you with innocent eyes, offering reasons and speaking with great
feeling, they will describe to you the grandiose mistakes of the
preceding government, they will cite unexpected difficulties, they
will find the necessary wording and metaphors, they will confidently
swear that black is white and vice versa... [ellipsis as published]
And we - not because we believe all this, but because we have grown
tired of the demagoguery - we will stop listening and go about our
business. And those in power - about their business. That is precisely
what they want!
I remember what Charles de Gaulle once said: "Since a politician
never believes what he says, he is quite surprised to be taken at his
word." The political allegories of the Party of Regions played a bad
joke on the voters, because everyone believed much too literally
the promise that "life will be better by tomorrow." Instead,
the country got hard and harsh realities from the victors: the
abolishment of benefits, an increase in the price of gas, rising
rates, tax pressure, a restoration of the old schemes of dealing with
businessmen... [ellipsis as published]
Today's ruling elite is more cynical than any before it. On the one
hand, the "Regionals" themselves did not expect the extent and the
kind of power they got, not so much won as voluntarily left on the
field of battle. On the other hand, the crisis of statehood produced
by the political reform promotes both boundless political adventurism
and economic redistribution. And so, under the circumstances, it is
irrelevant to consider the people and their expectations; you have
to "take and divide" among the chosen. To divide up power and money,
spheres of influence and parliamentary votes. And whenever necessary,
with diabolical shrewdness, take cover behind the shield with its
tarnished motto of "the will of the voters." Or, "the interests of
Kharkiv residents," for example. Or without any inscription at all,
a mirror-shield, in which are reflected, or, more precisely, from
which all promises, expectations, hopes have been reflected and cast
back... [ellipsis as published]
The mistakes of strategists and the incompetence of tacticians.
I am striving to be objective in my judgments. It is not easy for me,
but I must also say something about the side that lost (or, did not
win) - about the "orange" team.
On this subject, I will use harsher language. After all, I am pretty
familiar with the process from the inside and want to given an
accurate diagnosis.
The "oranges" were failed by the mistakes of their strategists and
the incompetence of their tacticians.
The mistake of the primary strategists lay in that the objectives
set after the triumph of the Orange Revolution (economic reforms,
Eurointegration, the European way of life, NATO, WTO) were absolutely
inconsistent with the rapidity of a realistic pace. This disparity
between time and space produced an avalanchelike disillusionment
in society.
And there is no other word than stupid to describe the tactical
mistakes that were made. They burst forth in all their beauty in the
post-election period: intrigues and vanity, double games and the same
kind of standards, irresponsible statements and petty bargaining,
political activity in diametrically opposed directions, and so on.
Add to this personnel-related blunders, in which revolutionary
expediency in the rotation of administrators resulted in some loss of
professionals and a split in the "orange" camp, and the primary cause
of the defeat of the "oranges" becomes clear: you have to unite "for"
and not "against." It was this collective, national "FOR" that we all
lacked badly right after the revolution and still lack today, even as
the fate of not only the coalition and the opposition but, strictly
speaking, the fate of the nation and the country is being decided.
...November. The branches of trees with the blue ribbons of the
election winners are growing bare. The multicoloured ribbons-promises
of a "better life" are growing bare, the true intentions of those who
made those promises are being laid bare... [ellipsis as published]
But spring will come and cover in green the trees innocent of false
promises. Life will win over the political garlands. Only we must
not let Spring pass us by.
Arsen AVAKOV,
Chairman of the Kharkiv Oblast State Administration
25 October 2006, between the congresses [of Our Ukraine]
I am extremely saddened by that fact that, even while not in power
(de facto, in opposition), Our Ukraine, BYuT [Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc,
and many other patriots and democrats once again cannot unite "for."
I find the position of some Our Ukraine deputies, who are prepared
to shed their principles and convictions in order to join the
"anti-crisis" coalition, totally incompatible with my own views.
We lost the election, but we did not lose our ideals and our voters.
Being in opposition to the existing government, we must work hard
and productively. We must unite all the democratic forces, but not
AGAINST [Prime Minister Viktor] Yanukovych and [Speaker Oleksandr]
Moroz but FOR justice and democratic values.
We have gone through severe trials, but anyone who says that they have
ended is not being honest. We must leave behind all our grievances
and ambitions, rid ourselves of all pettiness and vanity, as trees
rid themselves of their yellowed leaves.
Ukrayina Moloda, Ukraine
Nov 9 2006
Kharkiv Region governor Arsen Avakov has said that the Party of
Regions did not keep its promises made during the parliamentary
election, in particular, regarding language, NATO and people's
well-being. The following is the text of Avakov's article headlined
"November propositions" published by propresidential newspaper Ukrayina
Moloda on 9 November. Original subheadings have been retained:
Conclusions on the Rubicon: why did the "blues" win, what mistakes
did the "oranges" make, and is it all right to betray principles.
Weary of the hustle and bustle, the yellow leaves of autumn are
falling. Parting with their leaves, the branches of trees decked with
the blue ribbons of the election winners are growing bare everywhere.
The ribbons are being bared and so are the intentions... [ellipsis
as published]
Leaves, painted the brilliant colours of emotions, are falling to
the pavement, and so, too, are promises, laying bare the blatantly
crude nature of the true positions and promises of politicians.
Nobody is disturbed by the lies, which are becoming obvious.
Deceived yet again after the 2006 elections, society is not even
attempting to analyse the reasons for having been deluded or, more
precisely, self-deluded.
But let us nevertheless examine the key promises of the Party of
Regions, which enabled it to gain a victory in the elections.
Promise number one. Language.
It is easy for me to talk about both the problems of the Russian
language and the problem of the Ukrainian language, because I myself
am practically entirely the product of Russian-language culture. Yet
despite that I consciously consider myself a supporter of the position
that Ukrainian is the only state language in our country; Russian is
the main language of intercourse in the eastern and southern regions
of Ukraine, and nothing more.
I see no problems in communication between Russian speakers and
Ukrainian speakers. These problems arise once every four years,
only before elections. The problems are artificial, premeditated,
make-believe in form, and provocative in content. Because no serious
politician can fail to understand that the State of Ukraine has the
right and is obliged to support the Ukrainian language, if for no
other reason than because Armenia supports the Armenian language,
Russia -the Russian language, Germany -the German language.
Ukrainians, the citizens of this state, and the Ukrainian state must
support the Ukrainian language, because language, among other things,
is the basis of the nation's culture, its self-identification.
It so happened that for many years the peoples within the borders of
the Soviet Union, in a single polyethnic space, worked together to
create a unique, beautiful culture, the quintessence and expression of
which was the Russian language. It was in the Russian language that
countless cultural masterpieces and artistic monuments were created,
incorporating the entire polyethnic esthetic of cultures from Georgia
to Ukraine, from Moldova to Kazakhstan, from Russia to Armenia. I
love this culture. I grew up in it, and I value highly its beautiful
monuments created in the Russian language, the "great and mighty." And
it is absolutely obvious to me that the Russian language will always
continue to be used and respected in Ukraine. For the educated,
cultured individual, it will always be a vital fount of knowledge,
along with other languages.
But the Ukrainian language -beautiful, melodious, born on this land
- is as natural here as the air that the sons and daughters of this
land breathe, loved by many, many millions of Ukrainians, both ethnic
and those whom fate has bound to this land. It always has been,
is, and must remain the foundation of a unique Ukrainian culture,
of the nation's spiritual essence, which is the basis on which true
statehood is built.
How long will this inherently unnatural conflict between Russian and
Ukrainian last in Ukraine? Unfortunately, just as long as we, the
generation of people who were born and lived in the Soviet Union,
remain alive - the generation that was the author of this unique
polyethnic Russian-language culture.
And, therefore, it will be our lot to hear many more elections promises
like the one offered by the Party of Regions as the leading proposition
in the 2006 election. This promise to restore Russian as the state
language was largely responsible for the victory of the "Regionals."
This promise is a mirror that reflects the secret hope of a large
number of voters... [ellipsis as published]
Let us imagine, for example, a very learned professor, a wise man, an
intellectual, who lectures at, let's say, Kharkiv State University. A
true specialist, whom overzealous ministry officials suddenly force
to deliver his brilliant lectures in Ukrainian. And this turns into
torture for the professor!
No doubt that, somehow or other, every lecturer can master a
language, but for some this poses a very serious problem, especially
in the case of an older individual who grew up and was raised in a
Russian-speaking environment, understands it, and feels comfortable
in it... [ellipsis as published] Yet government officials demand that
this individual teach his subject in Ukrainian. And his wonderful
lecturers lose all their brilliance, even though they are delivered
in the state language. In this case, the lecturer, in his heart of
hearts will always set aside any other moral imperatives and based on
his innermost desire will vote for the one who proclaims be it even
a populist but still so appealing to him slogan: "Russian should be
the second state language!" And he will not care whether or not this
proposition leads to a split in the country, to social conflict,
because this promise reflects his wish... [ellipsis as published]
Therein lies the reason for so many votes in support of an empty
phrase, devoid of common sense and elementary culture.
The other side of the coin. What has caused such a metamorphosis in the
consciousness of people for whom Russian is their native language,
the language in which they think and create? Surely the radical
actions of political marginals, the extremely strident statements
by national-patriots, who demand everything and immediately, only
this and literally right now. It is they who have provoked such a
feeling of revulsion against the Ukrainian language among a part of
our intelligentsia.
A government official must deal with tact, sensitivity, and respect
with an issue as delicate as the relationship between languages during
this transitional period in the life of our society.
Promise number two. The anti-NATO promise.
This promise contains equal parts of deception and false propaganda.
The deception lies in the fact that the "Regionals" know perfectly
well that NATO is a broad, modern, international platform and not
the worn-out cliche of an "aggressive military bloc." The falseness
of the propaganda -in the methods used to stir up opinion similarly
to the attacks of the "cold war" period. All the "Regionals" lacked
to complete the picture were the caricatures by the Kukryniks tandem.
It is clear that behind this promise lies a ruthless pro-Russian
order. It is clear that the manipulation of people's expectations
(everyone expects a peaceful sky) is best done with the help of
fearmongering. Unfortunately, the pressure of Soviet propaganda
has left such a strong imprint on the minds of ordinary people that
anti-NATO sentiments have been very easily resurrected. The current
attempt to shape attitudes towards NATO through a referendum is
cynical. Cynical, because it is very easy to achieve the expected
result: whip up hysteria with the help of leftist marginals and then
drive people to a banal conclusion: I don't know what NATO is, but
I'll vote against just in case.
Very important in this respect is the awareness of one universal
fact. NATO is not the one calling on Ukraine to join its community
-it is Ukraine that should be seeking to become a member of this
organization. Just as Ukraine has made joining the European Union
its goal. It is Ukraine, first and foremost, that needs membership in
NATO. The reasoning that, see, Russia is allegedly not seeking to join
the West and we should follow her example is mistaken and dangerous.
At one time France showed the whole world the art of compromise in
foreign policy. Before de Gaulle came to power in 1958, France was
a full-fledged member of NATO - not only American bases but also
the governing bodies of NATO were located on French territory: the
alliance's Council, Secretariat, and Supreme Headquarters. Moreover,
a contingent of French troops was assigned to the composition of NATO
forces under American command.
In de Gaulle's view, all this infringed on French interests. The
dependence of Western Europe in security matters was turning into
political dependence. Fearing that France would be drawn into conflicts
that had no bearing on her interests, France left the North Atlantic
bloc in 1966 and assumed a special status. The NATO bloc adapted
to this state of affairs. Paris did not participate directly in the
work of NATO's military bodies, but maintained missions in them to
coordinate actions. France participated in the work of certain bodies
of NATO's military-technical infrastructure.
The most important dilemma - combining solidarity with NATO with
an autonomous status in the bloc - was resolved professionally and
diplomatically. De Gaulle's actions set a trend, especially apparent
in our own time (the independence of the members of the North Atlantic
bloc from the US is growing).
Perhaps Ukrainian politicians should also seek a similar approach
in order to reach a compromise in foreign policy and especially in
domestic politics.
Russia's tough and irreconcilable policy towards NATO is not a model in
this case. Russia is a completely different country. A rich, ambitious
country, with a strong authoritarian orientation, an imperial ideology,
and actions that are not always well-timed.
"Ukraine is not Russia," as former President [Leonid] Kuchma said. In
that (and not only in that) I agree with him. We have chosen a
European course of development, we are fighting for democracy, we do
not have the natural resources they have, and we are energy-dependent
on Russia. Where we are alike is in that we are also ambitious -
Ukraine is trying to prove to herself, to Russia, and to the world at
large that she is not a borderland but an independent European state.
For that reason, the Regionals' reversal towards the older brother
is essentially a betrayal of Ukraine, the betrayal of her national
interests. I use such strong language, because I am neither a
Russophobe nor a Russophile. I am a patriot of Ukraine; I find it
extremely offensive that I and my country are being deceived. Doubly
offensive when this is being done by my fellow countrymen.
The "anti-crisis" coalition has decided to undertake a serious revision
of the country's foreign policy course. And we need to understand
clearly that statements by the new government that shock the world
community are ringing out one after another not for the sake of
carrying out its election promises. The goal is much more serious:
to halt Ukraine's progress along the path of democracy, consciously
enter Russia's sphere of influence, and obtain huge political and
financial dividends in exchange.
Promise number three. "A real improvement of life by tomorrow..."
No matter how many times our long-suffering people have got burned
by various political ruses, advertising tricks, and other swindles,
their belief in an unrealizable but "rosy dream" proves to be much
stronger than ordinary common sense.
And politicos take advantage of this belief as they sweepingly paint
a cloudlessly-blue-skied tomorrow. And so the people believe that
promises that Russian gas will not increase but drop in price...
[ellipsis as published] And the residents of multimillion cities
believe that the costs of housing will never rise... [ellipsis as
published] And the voters are being calculatingly deceived with
the fairy tale of the "Five-year development plan"...[ellipsis as
published]
Come to your senses, my fellow countrymen! Why do you allow the rivers
of milk and honey of promises from the country's political swindlers
to flow?!
The victors will always find a way to explain why they did not keep
their promises -never doubt this, even for a moment. Looking at
you with innocent eyes, offering reasons and speaking with great
feeling, they will describe to you the grandiose mistakes of the
preceding government, they will cite unexpected difficulties, they
will find the necessary wording and metaphors, they will confidently
swear that black is white and vice versa... [ellipsis as published]
And we - not because we believe all this, but because we have grown
tired of the demagoguery - we will stop listening and go about our
business. And those in power - about their business. That is precisely
what they want!
I remember what Charles de Gaulle once said: "Since a politician
never believes what he says, he is quite surprised to be taken at his
word." The political allegories of the Party of Regions played a bad
joke on the voters, because everyone believed much too literally
the promise that "life will be better by tomorrow." Instead,
the country got hard and harsh realities from the victors: the
abolishment of benefits, an increase in the price of gas, rising
rates, tax pressure, a restoration of the old schemes of dealing with
businessmen... [ellipsis as published]
Today's ruling elite is more cynical than any before it. On the one
hand, the "Regionals" themselves did not expect the extent and the
kind of power they got, not so much won as voluntarily left on the
field of battle. On the other hand, the crisis of statehood produced
by the political reform promotes both boundless political adventurism
and economic redistribution. And so, under the circumstances, it is
irrelevant to consider the people and their expectations; you have
to "take and divide" among the chosen. To divide up power and money,
spheres of influence and parliamentary votes. And whenever necessary,
with diabolical shrewdness, take cover behind the shield with its
tarnished motto of "the will of the voters." Or, "the interests of
Kharkiv residents," for example. Or without any inscription at all,
a mirror-shield, in which are reflected, or, more precisely, from
which all promises, expectations, hopes have been reflected and cast
back... [ellipsis as published]
The mistakes of strategists and the incompetence of tacticians.
I am striving to be objective in my judgments. It is not easy for me,
but I must also say something about the side that lost (or, did not
win) - about the "orange" team.
On this subject, I will use harsher language. After all, I am pretty
familiar with the process from the inside and want to given an
accurate diagnosis.
The "oranges" were failed by the mistakes of their strategists and
the incompetence of their tacticians.
The mistake of the primary strategists lay in that the objectives
set after the triumph of the Orange Revolution (economic reforms,
Eurointegration, the European way of life, NATO, WTO) were absolutely
inconsistent with the rapidity of a realistic pace. This disparity
between time and space produced an avalanchelike disillusionment
in society.
And there is no other word than stupid to describe the tactical
mistakes that were made. They burst forth in all their beauty in the
post-election period: intrigues and vanity, double games and the same
kind of standards, irresponsible statements and petty bargaining,
political activity in diametrically opposed directions, and so on.
Add to this personnel-related blunders, in which revolutionary
expediency in the rotation of administrators resulted in some loss of
professionals and a split in the "orange" camp, and the primary cause
of the defeat of the "oranges" becomes clear: you have to unite "for"
and not "against." It was this collective, national "FOR" that we all
lacked badly right after the revolution and still lack today, even as
the fate of not only the coalition and the opposition but, strictly
speaking, the fate of the nation and the country is being decided.
...November. The branches of trees with the blue ribbons of the
election winners are growing bare. The multicoloured ribbons-promises
of a "better life" are growing bare, the true intentions of those who
made those promises are being laid bare... [ellipsis as published]
But spring will come and cover in green the trees innocent of false
promises. Life will win over the political garlands. Only we must
not let Spring pass us by.
Arsen AVAKOV,
Chairman of the Kharkiv Oblast State Administration
25 October 2006, between the congresses [of Our Ukraine]
I am extremely saddened by that fact that, even while not in power
(de facto, in opposition), Our Ukraine, BYuT [Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc,
and many other patriots and democrats once again cannot unite "for."
I find the position of some Our Ukraine deputies, who are prepared
to shed their principles and convictions in order to join the
"anti-crisis" coalition, totally incompatible with my own views.
We lost the election, but we did not lose our ideals and our voters.
Being in opposition to the existing government, we must work hard
and productively. We must unite all the democratic forces, but not
AGAINST [Prime Minister Viktor] Yanukovych and [Speaker Oleksandr]
Moroz but FOR justice and democratic values.
We have gone through severe trials, but anyone who says that they have
ended is not being honest. We must leave behind all our grievances
and ambitions, rid ourselves of all pettiness and vanity, as trees
rid themselves of their yellowed leaves.